Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by Sportsfan101, Feb 14, 2010.
And Dan Hawkins just got a lot more job security. Ugh.
Completely agree with the first paragraph....but how do you figure Hawk got more job security? I assume it has to do with the loss of $$$$, but if the millionaires club comes through and with the lo$$ Benson and Co. will see this year from having retained Hawk, dude's gone unless he goes 12-0 and wins the mNC. (OK lofty goal, but I belive the minimum gate is 8 wins with a bowl win being one of the 8)
When I'm talking about Hawkins job security, I'm talking about increased financial constraints on the AD due to the loss of 1/2 of B12 revenue for the next 2 years. But the Millionaire's Club (or whatever it will be called), if implemented, could go a LONG way toward alleviating my fears with regards to Hawk. We really need donors to step up. If I'm Mike Bohn, and if the Pac 12 is announced with CU as a member, he needs to capitalize on the excitement by BEGGING people to donate. I think increased donations over the next 2 years could offset some of the conference $$ losses -- which may mean that Hawk needs to EARN his job versus being handed his job due to financial constraints.
I also have a sneaking suspicion that the Pac 10 wants us so bad that they may be willing to pitch in some "parachute" to help offset the losses after we make the announcement.
Unlike the way Wash. DC likes to the phrase, this is truly a case where "you have to spend money to make money." Even if CU takes it in the $$$ shorts for a couple of years, it's definitely worth it in the long run, IMO. CU TO THE PAC!
I agree that the athletic department is much better situated for success in the Pac 10 versus the Big 12 and that losing $$ over the next 2 years is something we need to deal with.
One minor issue though is that the notice must be done 2 years in advance of the ending of the "additional term" in the conference bylaws. July 1, 2010 is only ONE year notice from the end of the current term. This means we would be losing 80% of revenues for that year.
Now, on the positive side, the Big 12 revenue last year was something like $8 or $9 million, so we would lose between $6.4 million and $7.2 million in revenue, but for only ONE year. Certainly the "million-dollar" club and/or the Pac Ten could help us out in that area.
What better "facility" to build for CU Athletics, than a better conference home!
Actually disagree on both accounts. The buyout will almost certainly be part of any realignment negotiations (CU wouldn't make the move it it was worse for them financially than staying). And if we do move, it won't be for 2 years and we're going to know everyhting we need to know about Hawkins future here at CU probably by the 5th or 6th game of this season. If anyhting, moving to the Pac 10 would likely reinvigorate the fan base and would give the AD the politcal capital to make a coaching change as well - fresh start for the whole program.
I say we leave after next year. Why wait?
New Pac 10 tv package must be part of the deal. Realistically these need to happen at the same time, it's an all or nothing situation IMO.
Thats true, but their current deal runs out in 2011 so I would think they would have a new deal in the works before the end of 2010.
Since the Pac 10 is a not for profit governed by its members do you really think they could hit a majority vote in this fiscal climate to cut their own revenue in favor of subsidizing us and team #12?
Why would they be cutting their revenue? Yes some of the money from the new contract would go to buying us out, but if each member received more money per year with the new TV deal they would support it.
Bringing in some more high profile members would give them leverage when negotiating a new TV contract, no?
Money from a conference title game would be new revenue as well.
Separate names with a comma.